Recent orders
Drug Treatment for ADHD
Drug Treatment for ADHD
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Stimulant drugs are currently being used to treat ADHD. These stimulants are effective when it comes to managing ADHD symptoms like impulsive behavior, short attention span and hyperactivity. Stimulants can be sued alone or together with other treatment like behavior therapy. This helps in the improvement of the ADHD symptoms as well as the self-0esteem of the patient, their ability to think and how they interact with family and friends. These stimulants are seen to improve the symptoms of ADHD in both children and adults. They reduce hyperactive symptoms, fidgeting and interruptive behavior and help an individual improve their relationships and finish tasks (Doggett, 2011).The improvement in attention span and behavior are seen as long as the patient takes these stimulant drugs. The prescription stimulants normally have a focusing or calming effect on a person suffering from ADHD. These drugs should be taken daily in form of capsules and tablets depending on the dosage. However, there is a potential abuse and addiction when it comes to taking stimulant medication particularly when the individual has a history of drug abuse or addiction.
ADHD is caused by a dysfunction of the brain dopamine and hence the reason why stimulants which increase the signaling of dopamine have a therapeutic benefit. The stimulants work through increasing the levels of dopamine within the brain-dopamine. Brain-dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is associated with attention, movement and pleasure. The therapeutic effect of stimulants is achieved through slowly and steadily increasing levels of dopamine that are same as the dopamine that is produced in the brain naturally (Doggett, 2011). Physicians start by prescribing low doses and then increase them gradually until a therapeutic effect is attained. When these stimulants are taken through other routes besides the ones prescribed, they end up increasing the levels of brain dopamine in an amplified and rapid way. This causes the disruption of normal communication that exists between brain cells and euphoria production. This leads to an increase in the risk of the patient becoming addicted to the stimulants.
There are various concerns when it comes to use of stimulant drugs to treat ADHD. These stimulants can increase an individual’s heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature. They can also decrease a person’s appetite and their sleep. When stimulants are abused they lead to malnutrition and the consequences that come with it. The repeated abuse of stimulants can cause paranoia and hostility feeling. Incase they are taken in high doses they end up causing cardiovascular complications such as stroke. It is very easy for a person suffering from ADHD to become addicted to the prescribed stimulants (Stanford, 2012). This is because these individuals take the stimulants without medical supervision and hence might end up abusing them. Addiction occurs in cases where they are taken in different routes or doses other than the ones that have been prescribed hence induce a rapid increase in the level of dopamine within the brain. If the stimulants are abused chronically, a person can experience withdrawal symptoms like depression, fatigue, and disruption of their sleeping patterns when a person stops taking them. There can also be some complications where a person crushes the pills and injects themselves. These tablets contain insoluble fillers that can lead to the blocking of small blood vessels.
References
Doggett, A. (2011). ADHD And Drug Therapy: Is It Still A Valid Treatment? Journal of Child Health Care, 69-81.Stanford, C. (2012). Behavioral neuroscience of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its treatment. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Family Law
Family Law
Western countries consider domestic violence as a scourge that must be eradicated in perspectives. Executive, legislative, and judicial systems of Western nations attempt to determine the best ways of attaining this goal. The question that is however challenging is how to tackle domestic violence between intimate partners. It is hard to go by even though worldviews generally deem that domestic violence is detrimental to individuals. In United States of America, mandatory arrest laws play a prominent part. The government is trying to tackle the issue of domestic violence by creating and adopting mandatory arrest. The law compels police officers to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence. This is compulsory to situations where victims do not intend to officially accuse their partner of abuse. Most partners tend to shy away even to report such incidences at the very moment of the offender’s apprehension. Mandatory arrest law clearly stresses American institution’s dedication with regards to management of offenders and clear eradication of violence between intimate partners.
Consequently, in France, their legislation benefits from ‘Loi du 4 avril 2006 renforçant la prévention et la répression des violences au sein du couple ou commises contre les mineurs’ (Feder 1999, p. 90). This came into law on April 4th, 2006. The law reinforces the prevention of domestic violence and represses violence within couples. It is further committed to protect minors against violence. Recent laws against domestic violence aims at preventing and restricting domestic violence. This is supported by the augmentation of punishment for murder from 30 years to life imprisonment in addition to restrictive orders. Policies aiming at curbing domestic violence have been inspired from a concept known as “the wine growers’ method that lay emphasis on the birds” (Feder 1999, p. 90). This is categorically compared to the genes and memes rather than on the flock. It advocates that human being should protect their vineyards. In such a way, the innate sadism and masochism of people involved in domestic violence could be tackled to the root of the problem.
Domestic violence laws may seems persuasive but it does not take into account the biological factors that trigger violence between intimate partners. These laws can be more valuable when biological perspectives are taken into consideration. For example, the integration of chemical inhibitors that restrains the production of testosterone hormone and thus one becomes violent. Biologically, violent partners should not be considered as criminals, but should be considered as people who unfortunately have to abide by the consequences of dominant genes that favor aggression. Additionally, partners enduring domestic violence not be regarded as victims of socially learnt behaviors, but should be regarded as people who cannot counter submerging forces of genes seeking to activate individuals’ reproductive success and transmission. Some countries have taken into account the biological concepts and thus reducing the violence since they are taking care of the root course of the violence.
Mandatory arrest laws for combating domestic violence are somewhat ambivalent in that during its passing, American authorities had the intention of improving and protecting people from domestic violence. Its enforcement on the contrary has turned out to enlarge the panel of weapons in the arsenal of perpetrators. They use the system against their partners and therefore intensifying the misery and desperation of victims. This might make people chastise the authority ranging from the community level to the federal administration by saying that nothing has been done to change for the better the situation surrounding victims of domestic violence. Before taking the issue this far it is important underline the conspicuous American effort of tackling the issue in spite of the flaws. The efforts clearly suggest America’s willingness to change the situation of combating domestic violence.
Furthermore, when the beneficial policies are fully achieved, it will reveal the main underlying reasons at the root course of domestic violence. This will in turn help solve and combat violence between partners. For example, organizations operating covert operations would one day be able to stop or generate domestic violence at will so as to destabilize heads of states or states and thus affecting foreign governments. Consequently, intelligence officers would be able to develop skills of initiating domestic violence between a head of state and his spouse so as to generate leaks in the national and international press (Feder 1999, p. 91). The root course of the violence would accordingly create a climate of suspicion where in the case of conflict between the head of state, his reputation as the head of state or in the international stage or at home could be compromised.
Practically, the implementation and enforcement of mandatory arrest laws in United States has profoundly affected to a greater margin, the statistics of domestic violence. It is surprisingly noticeable that despite implementation of mandatory arrest, rate of homicides between intimate partners are twice as high as in states without the mandatory arrest law (Feder 1999, p. 91). Consequently, contrary to what one may think the number and proportion of females who are arrested for domestic violence is higher than the number of males (Feder 1999, p. 95). A first guess when looking at the mandatory arrest law, we might conclude that it was passed to protect battered females. This seems completely beyond the point of original purpose. What is at stake in different states is that the relevance of mandatory arrest laws is to safeguard abused partners. The efficiency of mandatory arrest laws has in one hand been demonstrated by the sudden increase in the figures mentioned above. The results show a better apprehension of the reality of what entails mandatory arrest and domestic violence in the USA. The rates more accurately reflect the true prevalence of physical aggression against men (Feder 1999, p. 97).
The facts on women presume the sole physical aggression of males against women. The recent high figures encompass the aggregate violent acts perpetrated by both males and females. Researches have reasons about the high equal prevalence of violence in both sexes. For example, Henning and Holdford highlight possibilities that arrested people employ violence as means of retaliation against abusive partners (Feder 1999, p. 106). They say that sometimes police lack good judgment on dealing with domestic violence. This is mainly because they have not been fully aware of desperate situation that abused partners face. Despite these facts, women in their great majority have approved the implementation of mandatory arrest laws (Feder 1999, p. 106). Accordingly, despite an increase in homicide, the overall impact of mandatory arrest laws on the management of domestic violence has positive out in USA in spite of enforcement errors.
Furthermore, mandatory arrest laws have taken a wider step of dual arrests. In laudable efforts to stop domestic violence, law enforcement agencies now prefer to apprehend both partners rather than arresting either the man or woman. In arresting one partner, it has been realized that in most cases, police or law enforcement agencies have been arresting the wrong suspect (Feder 1999, p. 107). On the contrary, arresting one partner could sometimes be staged in that officers may arrest the partner who is usually abused because the abusers call the police in order to revenge. Therefore, mandatory arrest signifying a double arrest has proven helpful in most cases. The government is tackling the issue of domestic violence by creating and adopting mandatory arrest where law compels police officers to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence. This is compulsory to situations where victims do not intend to officially accuse their partner of abuse. Most partners tend to shy away even to report such incidences at the very moment of the offender’s apprehension. Mandatory arrest law clearly stresses American institution’s dedication with regards to management of offenders and clear eradication of violence between intimate partners.
Conclusion
Western countries consider domestic violence as a scourge that must be eradicated in perspectives. Executive, legislative, and judicial systems of Western nations attempt to determine the best ways of attaining this goal and thus most countries have developed a mandatory arrest law. In United States of America, mandatory arrest laws play a prominent part in combating domestic violence. The government is tackling the issue of domestic violence by creating and adopting mandatory arrest where law compels police officers to arrest perpetrators of domestic violence. This is compulsory to situations where victims do not intend to officially accuse their partner of abuse. Most partners tend to shy away even to report such incidences at the very moment of the offender’s apprehension. Mandatory arrest law clearly stresses American institution’s dedication with regards to management of offenders and clear eradication of violence between intimate partners. Mandatory arrest laws have taken a wider step of dual arrests. In laudable efforts to stop domestic violence, law enforcement agencies now prefer to apprehend both partners rather than arresting either the man or woman. In arresting one partner, it has been realized that in most cases, police or law enforcement agencies have been arresting the wrong suspect. Mandatory law might make people chastise the authority ranging from the community level to the federal administration by saying that nothing has been done to change for the better the situation surrounding victims of domestic violence. Before taking the issue this far it is important underline the conspicuous American effort of tackling the issue in spite of the flaws. The efforts clearly suggest America’s willingness to change the situation of combating domestic violence
Reference
Feder, L 1999, Women and Domestic Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Women &
Criminal Justice Series Vol. 10, Routledge, Publisher
Drug Trafficking
Drug Trafficking
Student’s Name
Department of affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
Drug Trafficking
The Mexico–United States border is an international border that separates Mexico and the United States. It stretches from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Gulf of Mexico in the East. It is the most often crossed border in the world recording over 350 annual crossings. It is furthermore the tenth longest border between two countries on the globe with a total of 3,145km length. From the Gulf of Mexico, it goes through Rio Grande to the border crossing at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, and El Paso, Texas. On the west, from El Paso–Juárez, it navigates large tracts of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts to the Colorado River Delta and San Diego–Tijuana and finally reaching the Pacific Ocean (Limb, 2018).
There have been a number of issues arising on the border that has seen both countries joining hands in an attempt to develop solutions to combat these issues. For instance drug smuggling has been a source of concern for both countries and the exigency to stop the passage of illegal narcotics from Mexico to the United States has had significant implications for the Mexico-U.S border region. This is the region where plenty of the efforts to enforce this mission occur. People and cargo crossing the border are both affected by the drug imposition expedition. The smuggling of drugs across this border has resulted to a number of other illegal activities by criminals taking place on both sides of the border. These criminal activities include corruption by officials who are supposed to be enforcing the necessary laws, money laundering and violence. Both of these countries presume drug trafficking to be a prime ultimatum to their respective national security. They have as a result decided to coordinate and come up with a bi-national counter-narcotics strategy in their attempt to neutralize this threat. The U.S has focused it efforts on providing support to its law enforcement firms on the border to facilitate the capabilities of drug interdictions. The U.S Customs Service, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) make up the chief agencies entrusted with fighting the flow of drugs into the United States.
Mexico is the current leading transit route for most of the cocaine and plenty of the heroin and marijuana produced from outside the U.S. It is estimated that approximately 60% of cocaine which has over 340 metric tons entering United States came through Mexico in 1998 (Campos, 2018). Despite the drug eradication efforts by the Mexican government, the country has remained to be a major source for heroin and marijuana that are sold in the United States. The DEA affirms that just about the 6metric tons of heroin mass produced in Mexico in 1998 gets to the markets in U.S. It further states that a significant amount of methamphetamine found in the United States is likely to have been manufactured in the country by Mexican drug traffickers or manufactured in Mexico before being transported in the United States.
Corruption which is highly influenced by drug smuggling activities is the major hindrance to the efforts by both U.S.A and Mexico in countering the flow of these narcotics between both countries (Sasikumar, 2020). The drug traffickers have influenced even the law enforcement officials. It is estimated by the U.S that drug traffickers squander billions of dollars annually to obstinate Mexican public officials across all levels. The Mexican president, after realizing the effects of corruption on law enforcement agencies expanded the military’s role in counter-narcotics activities. Personnel screening for individuals working in given law enforcement activities were also put in place. However, none of these initiatives proved efficient enough to be universal remedies for managing issues brought about by narcotics. In fact, some top officials in the agencies and military were found to be involved in drug trafficking upon personnel screening. Corruption of drug enforcement officials is not affecting Mexico alone, some employees belonging to the U.S Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S Customs Service have also been found to be engaging in illegal narcotic related activities such as gesticulating drug loads and enhancing their crossing at the border crossings, facilitating transportation of narcotics past U.S Border Patrol checkpoints. Some go ahead to sell the drugs and even revealing drug intelligence information to drug lords (Gaunt n.d).
Violence is another result of drug ball game affecting either sides of the U.S Mexican border. Violence has become an essential tool for the trade used by the organized crime groups coming from Mexico. For example, the DEA recorded 141 violent occasions between 1996 and 1999 (Toth and Mitchell, 2018). These were against pubic officials, informants and law enforcement officers from both countries. It is currently reported that most of these drug-related violent incidents have become often in Mexico and spread over to some communities in the United States. Money laundry is another problem arising from drug trafficking across the U.S Mexican border. Mexico is said to be the sanctum for money concealment in the whole of Latin America, this is according to the American Department of State. Legitimate businesses in both U.S.A and Mexico are used by the drug cartels to launder money. Transport and other sectors of the economy are considered for facilitating the movement of cash, drugs and even fire arms which are in some cases purposed to develop and expand their laundering activities. Operation Casablanca, which took place in May 1998 by the U.S Customs, is the biggest and most thorough narcotic money laundering investigation ever recorded in the history of U.S.A law administration. This investigation lasted for three years. It obtained an estimated $100 million dollars in illegal drug proceeds and resulted to the arrest of 168 people from the 12 of Mexico’s largest financial institutions. Three of Mexican banks were found to be involved in the money-laundering conspiracy (Marshall, 2017).
Both countries have since developed strategies to counter drug trafficking across both countries. For instance, both nations have put together their efforts in ways like meetings of government officials from both countries taking place periodically and development of a drug-counter strategy (Lebow and Lebow, 2016). The American government has increased its aid to the Mexican government’s law enforcement organizations. More support has been directed to the Southwest border to improve the competency of drug interdiction. There are also formal and informal mechanisms put in place by the United States and Mexican governments with the aim of boosting of cooperation and coordination between the agencies of the two countries on issues related to narcotics. The U.S- Mexican High-Level Contact Group on Narcotics Control and Senior Law Enforcement Plenary are the two major formal forums for coordination between the two countries. The contact group whose leader is the U.S. Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Mexican Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General, met twice in 1998. It resulted in the initiation of a proceeding for enhanced consultations and cooperation in cross-border operations that were deemed sensitive. Mexico further generated the Bilateral Task Force in the office of the Mexican Attorney General that was meant to investigate and dismantle major drug trafficking cartels along the U.S-Mexican border. Furthermore, the Bi-National Drug Strategy of 1998 held 16 general objectives including the reduction of manufacturing and distribution of illicit drugs in both nations, maximizing security at the border and increasing the focus of law enforcement efforts on criminal firms. This strategy has since led to the formation of various U.S –Mexican officials’ joint working groups. These have in turn led to institution of achievement measures meant to assess the progress and accomplishment of the objectives of the Bi-National strategy (Vajda, 2016).
The U.S. Customs Service is the primary agency when it comes to border crossings. They are aided by INS Inspections, who are in charge of halting the movement of illicit drugs on U.S. ports of entry. Furthermore, the Customs’ drug interdiction program conducts routine check-ups to search passengers, cargo and conveyances for illegal drugs. It also investigates other activities distinctive to specific ports. In carrying out its drug interdiction role, their core setback is to efficiently practice its interdiction and trade enforcement missions while enhancing people and cargo’s movement across the border. Customs took a grip of 31,769 pounds of cocaine, 830,891 pounds of marijuana, and 407 pounds of heroin along the U.S.-Mexico border in 1998. Customs is installing various state-of-the-art X-ray systems to check cargo and vehicles to enhance combating the drug problem at the border. It is further evaluating other new technology forms to be used in high-risk areas (Gabriel et al. n.d). The Department of Defense is the leading supporter of these and includes the support of and coordination with other law enforcement agencies. The Border Patrol is the chief agency in INS accountable for revealing and seizing drug traffickers along the border between the ports of entry. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that the Border Patrol seized 22,675 pounds of cocaine and more than 871,000 pounds of: marijuana in 1998 (Sanchez and Zhang, 2018). The INS further affirms that it was answerable for the arrest of more than 8,600 people for drug-related violations along the southwest border.
References
Campos, I. (2018). Mexicans and the Origins of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States: A Reassessment. The Social History of Alcohol and Drugs, 32(1), 6-37.
Gabriel, S. T. A. P. D., Assist, P. S. T., & PIELMUŞ, C. THE USA IMMIGRATION POLICY, BORDER SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL.
Gaunt, S. T. El NARCO.
Lebow, D., & Lebow, R. N. (2016). Unilateralism across the Border: The US–Mexico Relationship1. The Bush Leadership, the Power of Ideas, and the War on Terror, 91-112.
Limb, M. K. (2018). The US–Mexico Border: Place, Imagination, and Possibility. The Journal of Modern Craft, 11(1), 85-89.
Marshall, W. C. (2017). Discount Banking in Mexico. Studies in Political Economy, 98(3), 263-278.
Sanchez, G. E., & Zhang, S. X. (2018). Rumors, encounters, collaborations, and survival: The migrant smuggling–drug trafficking nexus in the US Southwest. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 676(1), 135-151.
Sasikumar, J. (2020). NARCO-CORRUPTION: A DESTRUCTIVE PRAXIS IN DRUG CONTROL AGENCIES. INDIAN JOURNAL, 1(1), 33.
Toth, A. G., & Mitchell, O. (2018). A qualitative examination of the effects of international counter-drug interdictions. International Journal of Drug Policy, 55, 70-76.
Vajda, J. (2016). US policies to combat Mexican drug trafficking organizations.